The Source for Art & Law Since 2005

Is purchasing a Tino Sehgal artwork really that radical?

Despite its lack of physical existence outside of the moment of actual enactment, Sehgal does sell his art — and often for quite a lot of money. His situations, or rather, the right to stage them, can be bought in editions, generally for five-figure sums, and can only be purchased by oral contract at mandatory in-person meetings between representatives from his New York City gallery, Marian Goodman, a notary and the prospective buyer; Sehgal or members of his studio are also usually present. No paper contracts, bills of sale or certificates of authenticity are exchanged.
Do these art work purchases function ...

College gallery closes exhibition after complaints about use of U.S. flag

Daniel Bejar's Rec-elections (False Flag), an 8- by 12-foot American flag based on Abraham Lincoln’s 1864 re-election campaign banner
Westchester Community College’s Fine Art Gallery is closing a solo exhibition by Daniel Bejar today, a week earlier than scheduled, after it received complaints from veterans groups about a work in which the artist rearranged the stars on the American Flag to read “fake”. Bejar sees the early closure as a case of institutional censorship, but after discussing it with the gallery’s director, he complied with the decision to take down the exhibition.
I'm quoted in this Art Newspaper article.

Satan sues for copyright infringement

The Satanic Temple filed a lawsuit on Thursday against Warner Bros. and Netflix, alleging copyright violation of its goat-headed statue, which appears in the new “Sabrina” series.
Lucien Greaves, co-founder of the Temple, opines here.
If the lord of the underworld finds no subversion in copyright infringement, then you know things are getting pretty grim for content lifters.
More here.

Jeff Koons ordered to pay copyright holder big money

[caption id="attachment_10119" align="alignnone" width="300"] Franck Davidovici’s “Fait d’Hiver” ad campaign for Naf Naf (1985).[/caption]
A French judge has found Jeff Koons guilty in his four-year-long legal battle with the creator of a surreal 1980s ad campaign for a clothing brand who claims the American artist stole his work.
More here.

The Artist as Lawyer, an Interview with Sergio Munoz Sarmiento about Art Law

Hrag Vertanian of Hyperallergic invited me to join him to talk about the evolving world of art law and discuss why I went to law school as an art project, what I think about some recent sensational cases (Richard Prince/Instagram, Sam Durant at the Walker Art Center, and the recent Banksy auction stunt) and my thoughts on how appropriation has changed from the 1970s.
The October 25, 2018 podcast is available here.

The New York Times reported yesterday that The Association of Art Museum Directors “will announce new guidelines on Wednesday for how their institutions should collect antiquities[.]…The Association … says the new policy will probably make it even more difficult for museums to build antiquities collections through purchases or… through gifts and bequests from wealthy private collectors. But they assert that the change will help stanch the flow of objects illegally dug up from archaeological sites or other places. The new policy advises museums that they ‘normally should not’ acquire a work unless solid proof exists that the object was outside its country of probable modern discovery before 1970, or was legally exported from its probable country of modern discovery after 1970.”

So we know we can’t yell fire in a crowded theater, but we can say the word fire. As always, over at Donn Zaretsky’s Art Law Blog there’s an interesting story concerning a performance art piece, “assasination” language, and what were the two Democratic candidates: Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

“Performance artist Yazmany Arboleda set up a show called ‘The Assassination of Hillary Clinton/The Assassination of Barack Obama’ in a storefront across the street from the New York Times offices in Midtown.” According to Arboleda, “It’s art. It’s not supposed to be harmful. It’s about character assassination — about how Obama and Hillary have been portrayed by the media. … It’s about the media.” Zaretsky points out that according to the New York Times, “[t]he police and Secret Service promptly shut it down.” Donn has an update and analysis of this issue and story by Eugene Volokh.

Update 2: We just noticed this notice on Plasner’s website: “I have agreed with LV’s lawyers to stop commenting on the case and to cease the sales of Simple Living products while we are working towards a solution.” Must of been some meeting on May 31st!

(Felix Gonzalez-Torres candy piece, part of an exhibition entitled, “America”)

We had a conversation involving Felix Gonzalez-Torres last night, specifically concerning his candy and stacks of paper pieces. There is something quite compelling and, dare we say, beautiful about approaching an artwork and being able to take part of it with you (or all of it for that matter). What makes Gonzalez-Torres’ work even more compelling is the fact that his work, when exhibited in a museum, is one of the few if not the only one which does not require the hawk-like presence of security guards. Ironically, an article appeared in today’s Los Angeles Times describing the presence of armed guards at the Los Angeles Museum of Contemporary Art (LACMA).

Law.com has a very interesting article regarding the increase in lawsuits and litigation in the “artworld,” as well as a realization of the importance of having written agreements between art collectors, sellers, and artists. The article indicates a move by certain U.S. law firms to initiate artlaw departments.

“The art of making an art deal used to involve a handshake, but these days it increasingly involves litigation…. ‘A handshake, unfortunately, doesn’t cut it any more,’ said Alan Effron, a litigation partner at New York’s Pelosi Wolf Effron & Spates.

The copyright infringement trial between Mattel Inc. and MGA (owner of the Bratz doll) has just gotten underway. Mattel basically argues that the designer of the Bratz dolls, Carter Bryant, was under contract with them during the time he designed these dolls. Under this contract, Mattel would have ownership of these designs. Mattel adds that MGA lacked the creativity to design these dolls, so “[MGA] thought the best way was to go out and take one.” We’re not doll connoisseurs, but these Bratz do look quite a bit like a poor girl’s Barbie (or else they’re from Florida). More on this at Law.com.

William Patry comments on an interesting law article dissecting whether or not the Visual Artists Rights Act (VARA) applies to art which is illegally installed on another person or company’s property. Patry cites a previous New York court ruling where the Court held that “VARA does not apply to artwork that is illegally placed on the property of others, without their consent, when such artwork cannot be removed from the site in question.” Seems that unless eventual destruction is part of the “installed” project’s concept there’s not much protection for interventionist artists. We have a feeling this is not the last time we’ll hear about this issue.

Clancco, Clancco: The Source for Art & Law, Clancco.com, and Art & Law are trademarks owned by Sergio Muñoz Sarmiento. The views expressed on this site are those of Sergio Muñoz Sarmiento and of the artists and writers who submit to Clancco.com. They are not the views of any other organization, legal or otherwise. All content contained on or made available through Clancco.com is not intended to and does not constitute legal advice and no attorney-client relationship is formed, nor is anything submitted to Clancco.com treated as confidential.